Thursday, June 27, 2013

[Victims of Court Corruption] Well, well, well, a judge with guts!

begin:vcard
fn:Ron Branson
n:Branson;Ron
org:www.jail4judges.org
adr;dom:;;P.O. Box 207;North Hollywood,;CA.;91603
email;internet:VictoryUSA@JAIL4Judges.org
title:National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
tel;work:http://vimeo.com/63749370
note;quoted-printable:Ron Branson=0D=0A=
National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief=0D=0A=
VictoryUSA@JAIL4Judges.org=0D=0A=
=0D=0A=
www.JAIL4Judges.Org=0D=0A=
www.sd-jail4judges.org=0D=0A=
http://vimeo.com/63749370
url:http://www.jail4judges.org
version:2.1
end:vcard



Well, Well, Well, a Judge With Guts!



Well, well, well, a judge with guts to fine an Ohio City and seize all its cameras for contemptuously violating his previous orders to close down all the cameras.

 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/27/ohio-speed-camera-contempt/2465791/




 
Judge orders Ohio village's speed cameras seized
USA TODAY

CINCINNATI -- A judge found Elmwood Place, Ohio, and the company it hired in contempt of court Thursday because the village continued operating its speeding cameras and collecting fines even after the judge ordered the program shut down. "Any money ...
See all stories on this topic »






[Victims of Court Corruption] Homosexual "Marriage" Now a Fundamental Right

begin:vcard
fn:Ron Branson
n:Branson;Ron
org:www.jail4judges.org
adr;dom:;;P.O. Box 207;North Hollywood,;CA.;91603
email;internet:VictoryUSA@JAIL4Judges.org
title:National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief
tel;work:http://vimeo.com/63749370
note;quoted-printable:Ron Branson=0D=0A=
National J.A.I.L. Commander-In-Chief=0D=0A=
VictoryUSA@JAIL4Judges.org=0D=0A=
=0D=0A=
www.JAIL4Judges.Org=0D=0A=
www.sd-jail4judges.org=0D=0A=
http://vimeo.com/63749370
url:http://www.jail4judges.org
version:2.1
end:vcard



Homosexual "Marriage"
Now a Fundamental Right


Marriage, once defined as one man and one woman, is now redefined by the Courts as two people. But I raise the question, "Why limit it to just two people?" and why not a humanoid and an animal? These are question which we are now sure to face in America in our so-called "courts of justice" grapple with redefining marriage."

As to the question of pastors now being forced by "law" to conduct homosexual marriages, we have Obama's assurances that that will never happen. But wait, I thought only Congress could pass laws, and such laws could even be considered, as such enforcement would be a religious imposition forbidden by First Amendment, i.e., "Congress shall make to law respecting an establishment of a religion." But we are not considering a law passed by Congress, but rather an assurance by the Executive Branch of government. The assumption is that the Executive Branch of the government can now enforce such law, but we are given assurance that the presidency will not enforce such law passed by the Courts.

With all the confusion as to defining marriage, or shall I say, "redefining marriage," I ask, "Why have marriages at all? Why not just dispose of "marriage" altogether? What's in a definition anyway? Why not, "If it feels good, just do it?"

Ron Branson




http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-i-wont-make-churches-conduct-gay-marriages/article/2532418

Obama: I won’t make churches conduct gay marriages

By JOEL GEHRKE | JUNE 26, 2013 AT 12:10 PM

President Obama, in his statement hailing the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, promised that he wouldn’t try to force religious institutions to conduct gay marriages.

“On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital,” Obama said. “How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions.  Nothing about this decision — which applies only to civil marriages — changes that.”

Here’s guessing that the Roman Catholics and other religious groups that are in the midst of fighting the contraception mandate are skeptical of that pledge.

“[T]he administration believes that this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious beliefs and increasing access to important preventive services,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said when the mandate was first unveiled last January.

Here’s Obama’s full statement:

I applaud the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. This was discrimination enshrined in law. It treated loving, committed gay and lesbian couples as a separate and lesser class of people. The Supreme Court has righted that wrong, and our country is better off for it. We are a people who declared that we are all created equal — and the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

This ruling is a victory for couples who have long fought for equal treatment under the law; for children whose parents’ marriages will now be recognized, rightly, as legitimate; for families that, at long last, will get the respect and protection they deserve; and for friends and supporters who have wanted nothing more than to see their loved ones treated fairly and have worked hard to persuade their nation to change for the better.

So we welcome today’s decision, and I’ve directed the Attorney General to work with other members of my Cabinet to review all relevant federal statutes to ensure this decision, including its implications for Federal benefits and obligations, is implemented swiftly and smoothly.

On an issue as sensitive as this, knowing that Americans hold a wide range of views based on deeply held beliefs, maintaining our nation’s commitment to religious freedom is also vital.  How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions.  Nothing about this decision – which applies only to civil marriages – changes that.

The laws of our land are catching up to the fundamental truth that millions of Americans hold in our hearts:  when all Americans are treated as equal, no matter who they are or whom they love, we are all more free.